United States v. Rashad Russell
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1766
8th Cir.2017Background
- Rashad A. Russell pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm but reserved the right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress the firearm.
- A confidential informant (CI) told Officer Lepinski Russell possessed firearms and later provided specific, reliable tips identifying a dark-colored sedan, a greenish handgun, and the sedan’s license plate.
- Officers located the sedan in North Minneapolis; after the car exhibited traffic violations it pulled over and Russell exited as a passenger.
- A patdown of Russell revealed marijuana; an officer then opened the sedan door, smelled marijuana, and searched the car, discovering a handgun on the passenger side.
- The sedan was a rental leased to Russell’s girlfriend, driven by another woman; Russell was not on the rental agreement and did not have the keys.
- Russell moved to suppress the gun for lack of probable cause to search; the magistrate judge and district court denied the motion, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge vehicle search | Russell argued he had a possessory interest in the rental car (leased to his girlfriend and allegedly operated at his request). | Government argued Russell was merely a passenger with no property or possessory interest, lacked keys, and was not listed on rental agreement. | Court held Russell lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and thus standing to challenge the search. |
| Validity of search based on CI tip and subsequent officer conduct | Russell contended there was no probable cause to search the sedan and thus the gun should be suppressed. | Government relied on CI reliability, matching license plate, observation of traffic violations, smell of marijuana, and the search after officers opened the door. | Court affirmed denial of suppression on standing ground; did not rely further on probable-cause analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and not vicariously asserted)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (expectation of privacy requires personal, reasonable expectation)
- United States v. Barragan, 379 F.3d 524 (Eighth Circuit standards for standing to assert Fourth Amendment rights)
- United States v. Gomez, 16 F.3d 254 (factors relevant to standing: control, use, ability to regulate access, totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Muhammad, 58 F.3d 353 (owner/renter permission needed to establish objective expectation of privacy in vehicle)
- United States v. Anguiano, 795 F.3d 873 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604 (passenger without ownership or regular use lacks standing)
- United States v. Green, 275 F.3d 694 (passenger lacked standing where driven by another)
- United States v. Macklin, 902 F.2d 1320 (possessory interest requires possession of vehicle and keys)
- United States v. Rose, 731 F.2d 1337 (possession and keys relevant to privacy expectation)